


From Clarissa to Buffy the Vampire Slayer : Sexual Violence in Fictional Narratives Written For and often (not always) by Women

by shadowkat67



Category: Buffy the Vampire Slayer (Comics), Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV), General Hospital
Genre: Bodice-Ripper, Criticism, Essays, F/M, Fandom Allusions & Cliches & References, Literary References & Allusions, Meta, Rape, Romance, Sexual Violence, Soap Opera, Social Justice, Writing, non-fiction
Language: English
Status: Completed
Published: 2013-06-27
Updated: 2013-06-27
Packaged: 2021-02-27 13:54:42
Rating: Mature
Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply, Rape/Non-Con
Chapters: 1
Words: 7,717
Publisher: archiveofourown.org
Story URL: https://archiveofourown.org/works/22408276
Author URL: https://archiveofourown.org/users/shadowkat67/pseuds/shadowkat67
Summary: The role of a writer is not to say what we all can say, but what we are unable to say.If you do not breathe through writing, if you do not cry out in writing, or sing in writing, then don't write, because our culture has no use for it.- Anais NinI tend to believe that all stories should be permitted to be told, no matter how painful or offensive they may be, because often we learn far more from the painful and offensive ones. And writing, good writing should be to a degree at least dangerous or unsafe. And you should feel free to tackle dangerous and emotionally heated topics.  But how you write about these topics, whether they be fictional or otherwise is important. And as readers and viewers, I think it is important to figure out how to listen, to hear the joke, the story, the tale in our heads and hearts in a manner in which we can see inside another heart or head to the degree to which we can understand. But understanding can be thwarted in how its told. It is also important to appreciate and pay attention to the context, medium, and manner in which the story is told.
Relationships: Luke Spencer/Laura Webber, Spike/Buffy Summers
Kudos: 5
Collections: March Meta Matters Challenge





	From Clarissa to Buffy the Vampire Slayer : Sexual Violence in Fictional Narratives Written For and often (not always) by Women

**Author's Note:**

> I discuss sexual violence in the context of how it has been referenced and detailed in novels, film, and television series. Also, discuss other's essays and commentary on the topic. Rape is brought up or alluded to in regards to how it has been shown in cultural media.  
> It may be triggering for some readers, particularly survivors of sexual violence. If this is the case? Best to skip. 
> 
> Also, I added some things to this essay. Updated the Luke/Laura romance to show where it currently stands. General Hospital being a long-running daytime serial is among the few that has been able to do a wickedly brilliant commentary on the boddice ripper romance genre of the 1970s. It examines it from multiple angles, and the story, ends better for Laura than it did for Luke over forty years later.

While traipsing about the internet this morning, I stumbled upon a rather interesting video regarding the reasons why murder is more acceptable or less atrocious in video games and narratives than rape. Or to be more precise why we are more forgiving of murder or murderers in fictional narratives than rapists, and more tolerant of video games with murder and torture, than a video game where people are raped.

Here's the link, in case you are at all curious: <http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/5972-Rape-vs-Murder>

I uncovered it in the comments thread of [Buffy Rewatch - Seeing Red](http://fozmeadows.wordpress.com/2013/06/17/buffy-rewatch-seeing-red/) by Foz Meadows, wherein Meadows uses it as a rationale for why fictional characters that torture and murder are periodically and understandably forgiven, as opposed to rapists. Meadows and others in the thread believe that what applies to video games applies to other fictional narratives. But I'm not quite certain it is that clear cut. Also, not all rapes are similar, just as not all murders are. There are mitigating circumstances and various scenarios. But there's a human tendency to lump everything in one category, wash our hands, and say - that is what it is. Obviously. As if it were obvious to everyone who comes upon it. Also, people love to justify their perspective. It's almost competitive in a way - my moral perspective is better than yours, nayah, nayah, nayah! We never quite leave the school-yard, do we?

The lovely thing about fictional narratives is they resemble what-if scenarios - providing various possibilities and reactions to one act. Through the narrative the writer can safely dissect the reasons for the act, its consequences, and how the act affects everyone involved. The longer the narrative arc, the better the dissection. The point of most narratives, if done well, is to explore the motivations of characters, the why of it, as well as the act itself or what happens when the characters do this. It is often a means of understanding ourselves and our own darker impulses as well as those around us. Even video games do this to a degree. 

Except with a video game the viewer is an active participant. Instead of watching Al Pacino's character Sonny rob a bank in order to obtain enough funds to get his partner a sex change in the classic 1970s film [Dog Day Afternoon](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_Day_Afternoon), the viewer gets to role play, and pretend to plan and rob a bank, kill cops, and race away. Or if you prefer, instead of watching Rick kill zombies for his survival in **The Walking Dead** , scared of more than just death and wondering what the dividing line is between him and the zombies he kills, you get to pretend to blast zombies away in the safety of your living room or bed-room as the case may be.

The difference appears to be that you are an active participant in the game scenario but not while watching the film or tv series or reading the book. But this is ignoring the brain or rather the part of the brain that questions and critiques, and learns. The required thought processes are different. While you play the game, you are utilizing a different set of brain functions. Kill the zombie before it kills you, and you are awarded by points, which you tabulate to win the game. A video game is just that a "game", you are not required to worry about anything other than "winning the game". Watching the tv series - you are worrying about Rick's survival and questioning his choices as he makes them and seeing the consequences. One is training your hand-eye coordination skills, while the other is using your cognitive reasoning capabilities. So I'm not certain you can place the same moral weight upon both. A film about a bunch of bank robbers robbing a bank or heisting a car, wherein each of their motives is described, is quite different from the video game Grand Theft Auto. Just as watching a tv show about a vampire who seeks his soul after attempting to rape his lover is quite different than say, playing a game in which you role play that part and do it yourself. They aren't the same thing.

That said, it is true that fictional narratives outside of video games glorify violence. They are written in such a manner in which the violence is justified, whether it be sexual or otherwise. And as Stirling states, the difference between justifying murder - ie. shooting someone in the head, and raping someone on camera or in a video game - is simply that in most cases only one gender can accomplish rape, while both can kill. Also with rape - you have a victim and a rapist, there's a power imbalance. While with murder - there can often be two people trying to kill each other.

This is true in regards to male-centric stories or male narratives, stories generally told by and for men, or in many cases by and for men and women.

When I watched the video, I thought, okay, clearly these people have a limited experience with female fantasy narratives and tropes. Or stories told primarily by and for women. They've spent far too much time with male-oriented romance novels aka pulp violent fiction (Philip Marlow, Supernatural, Thomas Harris or Stephen King novels, or Frank Miller comics). The horror, sci-fantasy, thriller genres, with the big guns and the zombies and the serial killers. Neither critic, I'm guessing, has a read a romance novel or heaven forbid watched a daytime serial. Probably consider such things beneath them, many people do. It's amazing to me how maligned the romance genre is. People will applaud the violence and story in blockbuster comic book action pictures such as _The Avengers_ , all the while sneering at the kinky sexual hijinks and story in best-selling novel _50 Shades of Grey_. Having read and seen both - I personally think they are of equal quality. Neither is better than the other, and both have similar flaws. (In short, I enjoyed both a great deal for different reasons.) But more importantly both, as do most popular genre fiction satisfy an itch, and depict a certain what-if fantasy scenario. They are not video games, although there is a video game version of the Avenger's film, they are fictional narratives that explore why people do certain things for good or ill.

I found Sterling's video and Foz Meadows comments regarding it, interesting. Just as I did the comments surrounding the Spike character arc, and the Spike/Buffy relationship in the latter seasons of Buffy. Mainly because of my experience with aforementioned romance novels and romantic serials, of which, I'm guessing not everyone is personally familiar? The video depicted above is focusing on male centric fantasy games, which are in either the horror, thriller or sci-fantasy genre. Not on the Female-centric romance genre. The romance genre of all the genres is often (not always) written by and for women. And within that genre the main violent act is often sexual, whether it be molestation, groping, seduction, attempted sexual assault, or rape. Also, and this should be noted, the violator is sometimes forgiven. The novels often operate as a series of what-if scenarios, ways to handle an act that all women deal with in some capacity on a daily basis, even if it is just the ever-present possibility of it happening. How women have handled the act and written about it, and how female reader's have responded has changed over time. And yet, in some respects stayed fairly constant.

Below is rather lengthy analysis of how the romance genre has handled this particular topic and the various and often conflicting opinions regarding it. I start with in the 18th Century and go all the way up to the 21st.

1\. **Clarissa** and **Les Liasions dangereuses**  
In the 18th century, Sir Samuel Richardson wrote several novels about Virtuous Women. Amongst them was the time-honored classic [Clarissa](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarissa). At the time the book was published, a contemporary, Henry Fielding (who'd written _Tom Jones_ ) wished for a happy ending. Many wanted the villainous Lovelace, a rogue, to marry Clarissa and be redeemed. In the novel, in rather graphic and brutal fashion, Lovelace rapes Clarissa, whom he had seduced away from her home. He rapes her in order to ruin her.

Here's what Wikipedia states about Richardson:  


>   
>  The novel avoids glorifying Lovelace, as Carol Flynn puts it:
> 
> _by damning his character with monitory footnotes and authorial intrusions, Richardson was free to develop in his fiction his villain's fantasy world. Schemes of mass rape would be legitimate as long as Richardson emphasized the negative aspects of his character at the same time._
> 
> But Richardson still felt the need to respond by writing a pamphlet called Answer to the Letter of a Very Reverend and Worthy Gentleman. In the pamphlet, he defends his characterizations and explains that he took great pains to avoid any glorification of scandalous behaviour, unlike the authors of many other novels that rely on characters of such low quality.  
> 

Richardson wrote Clarissa in response to books he'd read or seen in which the rake was redeemed. He believed that such a thing was immoral. If a woman rode off with a rake, the rake would rape and abuse her. To show otherwise, would in Richardson's view glorify the act and justify it.

Around the same period that _Clarissa_ was published, a French epistolary novel was published entitled [ Les Liaisons Dangereuses](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Liaisons_dangereuses). This novel focused on the antics of two people who used sex as a weapon to control and degrade others. From Wiki:

>   
>  It is the story of the Marquise de Merteuil and the Vicomte de Valmont, two rivals (and ex-lovers) who use sex as a weapon to humiliate and degrade others, all the while enjoying their cruel games. It has been claimed to depict the decadence of the French aristocracy shortly before the French Revolution, thereby exposing the perversions of the so-called Ancien Régime. However, it has also been described as a vague, amoral story.
> 
> As an epistolary novel, the book is composed entirely of letters written by the various characters to each other. In particular, the letters between Valmont and the Marquise drive the plot, with those of other characters serving as illustrations to give the story its depth.  
> 

Unlike Richardson's Lovelace, Valmont is portrayed with a bit more romantic affection. And is the protagonist of the novel. Valmont brutally seduces two women, falls in love with one and dies tragically defending her honor.

2\. Skip ahead to the 19th Century, where we have a variety of novels depicting sexual violence and seduction. Jane Austen's _Pride and Prejudice_ features the alluringly seductive scamp Mr. Wickham, who seduces and absconds with Lizzie Bennet's youngest sister providing Mr. Darcy the opportunity to redeem himself in Lizzie's eyes. Then in _Wuthering Heights_ , there is the ever-brooding Heathcliff, who it is implied abuses and rapes his wife, and attempts to seduce Cathy. He is portrayed in a rather romantic and tragic light, as well as a brutal one. A sort of cautionary tale of sorts.

And of course, Bram Stoker's classic novel _Dracula_ \- who prays on the women of a small English village, turning at least one into a vampire.

The vampire trope has always, at least since Dracula, leaned heavily towards seduction and sexual violence. 

3\. **The Boddice Rippers**

In 1974, Rosemary Rodgers published the classic historical romance novel **Sweet Savage Love** this was the first of many in the notorious boddice ripper genre, where the heroine is often raped, and brutally so, by the hero or someone close to her. Kathleen Woodwiss followed suite with _The Flame and the Flower_ and _The Wolf and the Dove_ , as did Judith McNaugth with _Whitney, my Love_.

The original version of **Whitney, My Love** which was published in 1985, contains two violent scenes - 1) a scene where the hero beats the heroine with a riding crop, and 2) rapes her. The new version, has a reworking of these sequences for a modern audience. In the original version published in 1985 - the hero, Clayton, rapes Whitney in a bit of a rage, after he is told a bit of malicious gossip regarding her. The new version changes this a bit, by having the hero merely attempt to rape Whitney.

Here's what a one reviewer states regarding both in an article entitled [ Romance and Rape Culture - a Modern Reader Reads Whitney My Love](http://www.heroesandheartbreakers.com/blogs/2011/11/romance-and-rape-culture-a-modern-reader-reads-whitney-my-love)

>   
>  In some ways, the Diet version of this novel is even worse, for the rape scene was rewritten to be consensual by having Whitney offer her virginity to Clayton to make up for her behaviour that “drove” him to kidnap, assault, and humiliate her in the first place. Her unpardonable crime was to embarrass him—and apparently the proper punishment for that is rape.
> 
> Whitney endures Clayton’s stalking her, restraining her, repeatedly sexually assaulting her, and finally (almost) raping her—and she forgives him forty pages later because her love for him is just too strong. Ultimately, this is filthiest worm at the center of this rotten apple of a novel: the idea that Clayton’s possessive, violent, wrathful, misogynist, distrustful behaviour is just a sign of how powerful his love is, and his actions are simply misguided expressions of that romantic love—which is darkly funny to me, because Clayton’s more “passionate” expressions of love are now seen as textbook examples of abusive behavior.  
> 

Now contrast this with [another review of the same book](http://www.likesbooks.com/cgi-bin/bookReview.pl?BookReviewId=3519):

>   
>  When you look up " hoyden" in the dictionary, you almost expect to see Whitney's picture. She's spunky, impulsive, and mouthy. She's rude and immature, especially at the beginning of the book. However, McNaught explores Whitney's character with all its ramifications. Lots of heroines are spunky, but their personality is only taken so far. McNaught takes Whitney all the way, and then some. The riding crop scene is a perfect example. Though it is changed in the second edition, it starts out the same way: Whitney throws a riding crop, intending to hit Clayton. Instead she hits and injures a horse who happens to display very aggressive behavior when he even looks at a riding crop. There are no two ways about it - it's a stupid thing to do, and Whitney realizes it immediately. Whitney goes on to do many other stupid things, but she repeats the pattern of learning from her mistakes. By the end of the book she is less of a girl, and more of a grown-up.
> 
> Similarly, Clayton's arrogance is taken to its logical extreme, and he is much slower to learn than Whitney. Twice he leaps to incredibly silly conclusions about her, and in both cases his actions are disastrous. First he believes the malicious gossip of a woman who hates Whitney, and rapes Whitney as a result. Then after they are reconciled and happily married he finds a note Whitney wrote during their estrangement. The note seems to provide damning evidence that Whitney was pregnant with another man's child when she came to profess her love for him. Does anyone besides me wonder why Whitney didn't throw that stupid note in the fire instead of saving it? Did she think she might need it later? Anyway, this time Clayton's assumptions about Whitney's character are all the more reprehensible, because he has been married to her for months and should really know better. Whitney forgives him, but many readers find that they can't be so generous.  
> 

And this should in turn be contrasted with these reviews of the same book on this [site](http://romancerookie.blogspot.com/2008/05/review-whitney-my-love.html):

>   
>  _What struck me first was the ability of Mrs. McNaught to immediately draw the reader into the story, by painting such a vivid picture of a young girl, Whitney. Whitney is quite a captivating character, richly drawn with a depth of personality. She can be obstinate and determined and yet she can also be soft and vulnerable too. She is no simpering ninny, but is contrite when she knows she did something wrong. In essence, she is infinitely likeable._
> 
> _The hero of the story Clayton was every bit as well drawn as Whitney. What I liked about him was how he went about trying to woo Whitney. He already knew he was going to marry her and could force her if he wanted too. Yet he chose to give her time to come to know him and make her own decision. It was a lot of fun to read of their courtship and the witty repartee that they shared during this time._
> 
> _It did turn ugly though, when inevitable the “big misunderstanding” occurred. McNaught really pulls the heartstrings of the reader, making them feel Whitney and Clayton’s pain. This occurs not once, not twice, but three times. Talk about an emotional roller coaster. If you are a reader who loves angst, there is plenty to go around in Whitney, My Love. This was a rich story that grips you emotionally and doesn’t let up._
> 
> _*Note* The version I read was rewritten to be more politically correct. It has a new longer ending and added scenes. This makes me wonder what the original book was like if this one was considered the “tame” version. I shudder to imagine._  
> 

A commentator on this site, reveals the politically correct version of the novel:

_For the supposed rape scene, Clayton grabs Whitney from a party she is at and forcibly throws her in his carriage. He is very cold and won’t let her talk or explain anything and she has no idea what is wrong. He takes her to his home and rips her dress off her. He commands her to lie down on the bed and she does as she is told. Whitney knows what is going to happen and right before he enters her body, she puts her arms around him and kisses him to let him know she loves him and trusts him. He then rams himself into her and she screams out in pain. Clayton then pulls out and gets off of her and is quite tortured to realize she actually was a virgin. Whitney then rolls over and cries herself to sleep not wanting to hear anything that Clayton has to say._

_Man, that scene was a mess. Actually all the misunderstandings had my heart beating in double time._

In 1977, Margaret Atwood wrote a short story/novella entitled [ Rape Fantasies](http://litmed.med.nyu.edu/Annotation?action=view&annid=1191).

Here's a brief plot summary of the story - as provided by Literature, Medical Annotations:

>   
>  Written in 1977, _"Rape Fantasies"_ appears to be a recap of a conversation among several women during their lunch hour, a few of them playing bridge, one--Chrissy the receptionist--reading aloud from a tabloid. When Chrissy asks the question, "How about it, girls, do you have rape fantasies?" the story unfolds with each woman’s response, all retold from the perspective of Estelle, who’s doing her best to deflect the entire conversation by concentrating on her bidding.
> 
> The conversation is tragically ironic, moving from woman to woman, **Darlene calling the entire subject "disgusting," Greta describing a Tarzan-like scenario, Chrissy describing hers in a bubble bath, when Estelle, ever the voice of reason, reminds them that what they’re describing are sexual fantasies: "Listen . . . those aren’t rape fantasies. I mean, you aren’t getting raped, it’s just some guy you haven’t met formally who happens to be more attractive than Derek Cummins . . . and you have a good time. Rape is when they’ve got a knife or something and you don’t want to"** (104).
> 
> Estelle then describes her rape fantasy where she deflects her attacker by squirting juice from a plastic lemon in his eyes ("You should hear the one about the Easy Off Cleaner"), but also includes the one where "this short, ugly fellow comes up and grabs my arm . . . [and] I say, kind of disgusted, ’Oh for Chrissake,’ and he starts to cry," which prompts a wave of sympathy in Estelle (106). And there are more, each with Estelle warding off her attacker through outsmarting him ("I’ve just found out I have leukemia"), or talking him out of it.
> 
> As the narrative continues, the reader becomes aware that Estelle is addressing someone in addition to the reader--"I hope you don’t mind me holding my nose like this . . . " (107) and that person is probably a man (twice Estelle says, "But I guess it’s different for a guy"). **As the story ends, we realize that Estelle all along has been in a bar, speaking to a man she has just met, worrying about the possibility she will be raped by him. "Like, how could a fellow do that to a person he’s just had a long conversation with, once you let them know you’re human, you have a life too, I don’t see how they could go ahead with it, right?" (110). We are left wondering whether all these "conversations" are Estelle’s deliberate inventions, her way of trying to control a potentially dangerous social interaction.**  
> 

Atwood starts out her story deftly critiquing the boddice ripper romance or the rape fantasy. Then she moves on to demonstrate how various people handle the prospect that they could be raped by a lover, boyfriend, first date, acquaintance or stranger. Drawing a clear line between the romantic fantasy and the real-life rape fantasy scenario. In romantic fiction - sexual violence is always lurking in the shadows. In the Regency novels, it is referred to in humorous anecdotes, much like in Eloise James, _A Kiss at Midnight_ , where one of the female characters humorously sticks a fork in the hand of a man who attempts to force himself on her. And more often than not, the hero dispatches the fellow to a foreign clime or ousts him from polite society. In the boddice ripper - which is in some respects a more realistic version of the time period and often depicts abusive and melodramatic relationships, the woman is raped by her lover, but he is remorseful, and grovels.

4) **The Daytime Serial**

Daytime Serials were mainly created as television stories directed towards women. When they first aired on radio and on tv sets in the 1950s and 1960s, they were directed at housewives and mothers. As the years passed that grew to working women and college students. But always women. There are male watchers, but the genre is mainly written for women.

In the 1970s and early 1980s, the hottest romance on television was [ Luke and Laura](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_and_Laura) from the long-running pot-boiler serial [General Hospital](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Hospital). The wedding of these two characters is to this day amongst the most watched television events globally. Few have surpassed it. Which is a bit of an accomplishment, considering it was a daytime serial written by and for women.  
The central relationship of Luke and Laura was constructed by the show-runner and head writer, Gloria Monty. A woman.

Here's the story: Laura, an 18-20 year old newly-wed, becomes intrigued and somewhat enamored by the manager of a local disco, Luke Spencer. Luke is the Bad-Boy brother of Nurse Bobbie Spencer, who is trying to seduce Laura's up-standing husband and first love, Scotty Baldwin. Turns out that Bobbie and Luke were raised in a whore-house, and Bobbie turned tricks prior to becoming a nurse. Luke is Bobbie's rake of a brother, he's a gambler, a drinker, and in trouble with the mob. Laura and Luke flirt with one another. And he becomes as enamored with the lovely Laura as she is with him. One day, Luke's shadowy past catches up with him, and he realizes that the mob has ordered a hit on him. Convinced he only has a short time left - he gets drunk. Laura shows up at his disco and he rapes her. It's not pretty. Laura ends up in the hospital. But when Luke visits, bringing her flowers and showering her with remorse she forgives him. She not only forgives him, she goes on the run with him - and they hide out in a department store. Go on various adventures. Until finally, they sleep together, and eventually get married. 

From Wiki regarding the popularity of the Luke and Laura storyline:  


>   
>  Though other supercouples came before them, Luke and Laura are the best known outside of the soap opera medium and are credited with defining the term "supercouple" and leading other soap operas to try to duplicate their success.
> 
> In 1996, TV Guide included the wedding of Luke and Laura as part of its "100 Most Memorable Moments in TV History," ranking it number 35.
> 
> Despite having been raped by a drunken Luke, Laura later falls in love with him. Originally, critics of the soap opera genre panned the choice of having a rape victim fall in love with her rapist. The unlikely pairing became popular in spite of Luke's past misdeed when the story shifted to focus on love and redemption.
> 
> The couple wed at the end of the hour-long show on November 17, 1981; the event was watched by 30 million viewers and remains the highest-rated hour in American soap opera history.  
> 

Skip ahead to the 1990s, a new woman show-runner takes over, Jill Faren Phelps, and the Luke and Laura relationship and rape is revisited. This time around we see it through the perspective of Laura's two sons, Nicholas (Laura's son by Stavros Cassadine who had held Laura prisoner and raped her during her captivity) and Lucky (her son by Luke). A friend of the two boys, Elizabeth, is raped brutally in a park. After the rape, they get into an argument and Nicholas reveals that his father, Stavros, wasn't the only one who had raped their mother. Luke Spencer did it first. Lucky confronts both his parents with this news. And for a while refuses to speak to or have anything to do with Luke. Laura informs her son that the situation was quite different and not comparable to what happened with Stavros or what happened to Elizabeth. And while it had been brutal, it was something that had happened between Laura and Luke.

[Here's](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeOYg43DdIw) what Luke tells his son, Lucky, about his rape of Laura, the love of Luke's life and Lucky's mother

Luke's discussion of it focuses on male pain and projecting his pain onto her. A local mobster had a price on his head, and he knew he'd die the next day. Laura hunts him down at the Campus Disco, confronts him about their relationship. "She turned away...and that was the dance we did, push and pull. And I realized I couldn't go to my grave without holding her once, one time. And I kissed her, and she kissed me back, I know she did...but then I tried for more, and she said no. She kept saying no. But I pulled her down to the floor and I raped her."

And [here's](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXUDCI-XO6k) what Laura states in regards to the same rape that had happened a decade earlier before they were married.

Lucky is angry with his mother, confrontational. And very callous. She responds: "You don't own me. You didn't create me. There are things about me that are private that I should never half to explain....You are creating a monster that is your father and another one that is me."

What's interesting in both scenes is how the man makes it about him. Lucky is furious with his mother for never telling him. And judges her for how she reacted or dealt with it. While Lucky can forgive and possibly understand why his father raped Laura, he can't quite understand or forgive his mother for forgiving him. Particularly after he's witnessed what happened to his friend. He has lumped the two scenarios together. Laura...doesn't want to speak of it and says little. Pushing it aside as something in the past, something she got past. The only people who hold on to it are her son and Luke. And worse, still, she blamed herself for what happened. But no longer. She's moved past it now. It no longer defines her, it never did. But it did define Luke, he held onto it and beat himself up, but she moved on. She didn't know he held on to it.

[ Here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-f2ax8vkB0U) and [ HERE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqxI4FFKARg) and [ HERE ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOnRgNekaqE)Luke and Laura Discuss the Rape that Happened Twenty Years Ago

>   
>  Laura: You kept saying you loved me. But how could you do that? How could you say that you loved me and call me your Angel and then RAPE me!  
>  Luke: I hate regrets. I don't usually have them, I think they are insulting, take responsibility for what you do. And I hate apologies, they are for cowards like my father, deep in his booze, hitting us and then the next morning apologizing. I'm Sorry. But it doesn't work like that. Once something is broken, you can't unbreak it. The wreckage is your life, you have to live in it until the day you die. I should have lost your Laura by all rights. Because that's how something works -- when you break something, it can't love you back, that's the punishment, that's the law.  
>  Did I hear you crying? Yes. Did I hear you saying no? Yes. But you were married to another man -- you kept telling me that. And tomorrow you'd be with him and I'd be dead...so..I found a way for you to love me and not be unfaithful to him. I know..I know it's crazy but it's the way I thought. And then when it was over and I looked at you -  
>  Laura: You mean when you were done.  
>  Luke: When I was done. I looked down at you, I reached for you and you made this sound like a kid who knows nothing but beatings..and I knew there was a price I had to pay and I would have to pay it. And I've felt like a man waiting for noose around his neck but he never comes..Why is that?  
>  Laura: So you thought that night was the end of all possibility for us?  
>  Luke: No, no...but Laura nothing is free..  
>  Laura: I know you think that but it isn't true. You seem to want me to accuse you, to blame you, in fact you insist on it, but what I don't understand Luke is why you don't blame me?  
>  Luke: For what?  
>  Laura: You mean you don't know? I was 17 years old and publically and happily married. I didn't lie when I told Lucky that it was love at first sight. I was fascinated with you and I didn't know how to handle that relationship and I didn't even have the guts to admit I wanted to..so..instead, I pestered you, dressed to you, told you I wanted to be your friend -- because that's what young girls do, when men are still a mystery and we're still a mystery to ourselves. It's not an invitation for rape. But. When I was in my hospital room that night afterwards, I was lying there thinking and was wondering if somehow you had seen through me and it made me sick, it made me feel dirtier than all of the rest of it. I ruined your life and my life too all because I wanted to feel pretty. When Scotty and the police kept trying to get me to accuse you, I wanted to say no, no, I did it -  
>  Luke: Oh Laura, Come On.  
>  Laura: No, no - I don't blame myself anymore. You want to know why? Because you didn't! You were the only one who had a right too. And I realized that maybe it didn't have to ruine everyone's lives, and if I could return that forgiveness to you...and now, I find out all these years later, that you wanted me to accuse you and punish you. My God Luke, if we've added up everything that I've done wrong and since then, wouldn't we be even? do you think we'd be even? Then what, do we have to lose everything we've been given? Do you have to stop loving me to just teach yourself a lesson?  
> 

However, it should be noted that this being a serial, the story is far from over. Years and years later, Laura and Luke both find themselves in psychiatric institutions dealing with deeply embedded psychological issues. And upon release, at different points and separately, they drift apart, and form relationships with other partners. And when they revisit their epic romance, they both state in different ways that it was doomed to failure from the start -- because nothing lasting could be built on rape. Tracy, Luke's current paramour, tells him that his love with Laura was an abusive one. And he agrees. A push and pull. He thought she could save him. And Laura tells Kevin, her current husband, that what hung over their heads and eventually broke them up among so many other things, was Luke constantly needing her forgiveness. She'd moved on from it in her own way, he never could.

General Hospital is by no means the only serial that has handled this topic in a controversial manner. _One Life to Live_ had the controversial anti-hero character of [ Todd Manning](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Manning), who much like Luke Spencer had originally been intended as a short term character, but took off and became a popular one as well as the subject of many studies. Todd's defining moment was engineering the brutal gang-rape of his tutor Marty Saybrook. Todd is sent to prison. He escapes. Goes through various transformations, and becomes a romantic lead of the series, a roguish bad boy with an on-again/off-again love/hate romance with Blair Kramer. Much like the Luke character, Todd is eventually tamed by the love of a strong woman or at least to a degree. The other soap operas that played with the same trope are _Days of Our Lives_ and _Guiding Light_.

 _Guiding Light_ confronted spousal abuse in the late 1970s, when Roger Thorpe brutally raped his wife Holly when she attempted to leave him for Doctor Ed Bauer. Holly presses charges against him. Roger gets free of them. Holly shoots him and is sent to prison. He comes back, Ed and Roger fight, Roger falls off a cliff.

Skip ahead to the 1990s, 20 Years later Roger returns again this time engaged to someone else but the flirtation between Holly and Roger continues, the rape is revisited in the following scene. Holly has agreed to go along with a plan to test the faithfulness of Alexandra's husband Roger. in Acapulco, she seduces him, waiting for Alexandra to interrupt, but the plan goes awry in more ways than one. In part I, she's uncomfortable and can't quite go through with it and when he continues, she screams at him to stop. He does and backs away in shock. She says can't you hear no? He backs away. Realizing she screwed up, she tries to get the moment back and they end up discussing the rape that happened 20 years earlier.

What's interesting about this is the extent that rape is allowed to define the relationship and Holly. Holly is twisted up by her feelings for Roger. She loves and hates him at the same time. Yet Holly does get past it. She runs a tv station and has various relationships. Nor does it over time define either Roger or the relationship. The problem with sexual violence is while it is all very well and good to tell someone that it is unforgivable and you need to boot the guy out of your life, it often is not that simple. Roger and Holly share a child and a past history. And there is a fantasy that the woman can tame the guy, change him, and redeem him. How possible this is, depends on your point of view. The Holly/Roger story shows that Roger is never really redeemable, and every time Holly gives in to him - he finds some way to betray and hurt her.

This is equally true of Luke and Laura - Laura eventually ends up divorcing Luke and now, years later, in her fifties, is married to Kevin Collins, a psychologist, and is the Mayor of the town. Luke is long gone to Amsterdam, and resides there off and on with Tracey Quatermaine, who understands him better, after his own stint in a psyche ward dealing with the issues that caused him to rape Laura and hurt so many others. 

In the Daytime Serial - we see how the rape narrative is handled in the 1970s and twenty years later in 1990s, oddly it is not that different. There are minor changes, but the issues are relatively the same. Yet, post Twentieth Century, it has changed. The survivor is the victim, who isn't a victim any longer, but strong and a leader, while the rapist fades off screen.

5\. **Buffy the Vampire Slayer and the current supernatural/paranormal romances.**

In 2002, Buffy the Vampire Slayer depicted an abusive sexual relationship between Spike and Buffy, which also at times contained elements of love. The relationship eventually imploded - resulting in the attempted rape sequence in Seeing Red. Spike's attempted rape of Buffy motivated Spike to seek a soul and redeem himself. When she attempts to forgive him for his crime in the episode _Never Leave Me_ , he rails at her, stating that he doesn't deserve her forgiveness and is irredeemable, that she should just kill him before he hurts any more girls. Buffy states that she lets him live because she saw his remorse, she knows that he faced the monster inside and fought back. She believes in him.

>   
>  SPIKE: Have you ever really asked yourself why you can't do it? Off me? After everything I've done to you, to people around you. It's not love. We both know that.  
>  BUFFY:You fought by my side. You've saved lives. You've helped—  
>  SPIKE: Don't do that. (rolls eyes) Don't rationalize this into some noble act. We both know the truth of it. (looks down and away) You like men who hurt you.  
>  BUFFY: No.  
>  SPIKE: (looks at Buffy) You need the pain we cause you. You need the hate. You need it to do your job, to be the slayer.  
>  BUFFY: No. I don't hate like that. Not you, or myself. Not anymore. You think you have insight now because your soul's drenched in blood? You don't know me. You don't even know you. Was that you who killed those people in the cellar? Was that you who waited for those girls? [In [ the original shooting script](http://www.buffyworld.com/buffy/scripts/131_scri.html) \- she states the man who raped her. But this did not make it to final reel.]  
>  SPIKE: There's no one else.  
>  BUFFY: That's not true. Listen to me. You're not alive because of hate or pain. You're alive because I saw you change. Because I saw your penance.  
>  SPIKE: (lunges violently at her, but chains hold him back) Window dressing.  
>  BUFFY: Be easier, wouldn't it, it if were an act, but it's not. (walks toward him) You faced the monster inside of you and you fought back. You risked everything to be a better man.  
>  SPIKE: Buffy...  
>  BUFFY: (in his face) And you can be. You are. You may not see it, but I do. I do. I believe in you, Spike.  
> 

While Season 6 of the serial removed the metaphors for seduction and rape, Season 7 put them back again. But in both cases sexual assault is addressed, and in both the woman is not defined by the assault, the man is. And it's Buffy who pushes people to think past it. This was a small moment in my life, I refuse to let it define me or my relationships - she states.  
In the above scene with Spike, the rape is the furthest thing from her mind.

The arc, while written by men, was in some respects conceived by Marti Noxon, a woman, who wrote it largely from her own experiences. It was also written for women.

Many viewers, including the actor who portrayed Spike, believe that Buffy should never have forgiven Spike and Spike should not be redeemed for such an act. While Angel could be redeemed for almost destroying the world (more than once), and killing the beloved Jenny Calendar, Spike by many fans was deemed irredeemable for "attempting" to rape Buffy. Note he didn't actually follow through. Not only that but he leaves immediately to get a soul. These fans also felt that anyone who disagreed with their pov was clearly either a rapeapologist or rape sympthizer or sick. Their pov is similar to the pov espoused in Stirling's video linked at the top of this essay. It's from the "male" perspective - which is when a man rapes a woman she is forever tainted or broken. She'd be better off dead. As if her gender completely defines her. And it is not an act that she can reciprocate. A perspective that has been adopted by many women as well. In addition, if a woman forgives the man who raped her or finds another way of dealing with it - she is slut-slamned or blamed for doing so. Much as Lucky Spencer blames his mother in General Hospital for forgiving his father for raping her.

What's interesting is how various female fans handled the rape in **Seeing Red** in fanfic and meta. [](http://herself-nyc.livejournal.com/profile)[**herself_nyc**](http://herself-nyc.livejournal.com/) wrote a lengthy fanfic where Spike is almost suicidal over it. He's torturing himself. [](http://wisteria.livejournal.com/profile)[**wisteria**](http://wisteria.livejournal.com/) , another fan, wrote one in which Spike is more or less doing the same thing, and the two characters, Spike and Buffy discuss it at length. Most female fanfic writers who had enjoyed the relationship prior to the rape found ways to redeem Spike or explain the rape. Many looked for ways to explain it - or understand it through fic and meta.

The contrast in reactions is similar in some respects to how fans handled Judith McNaught's novel _Whitney, My Love_ or even _Luke and Laura_. Gloria Monty chose to redeem Luke and turn them into a super-couple, while Jill Pherin Phellps and her team of male head-writers, including head-writer Robert Guza, went the other route, and condemned the characters for it.

Rape much like off-color racist or religious jokes, tends to work better when women discuss it. Mainly because it is more often than not a crime against women. It happens to women. Women are the victims, if we chose to be. Although men are raped and can be raped but by men. It is difficult, although not impossible, for a woman to rape a man. As many fan-ficcers can relate. Because they attempted it. After **Seeing Red** , many women wrote fanfic's which had Spike being raped or abused. Much as Marti Noxon has the First Evil manhandle and sexual abuse him in S7. The sexual abuse is implied and happens off-screen.

Other novels, such as Meyer's **Twilight** books, wherein teen hunk Jacob attempts to rape best-buddy Bella but she later forgives him for it, are bit more careful with the topic. Jacob doesn't win Bella's heart, it remains with Edward. As was Buffy to a degree. Spike and Buffy never ride off into the sunset. Even **Whitney, My Love** was re-written to meet the criteria of the modern reader - although not quite to the same degree.

That's not to say the boddice rippers don't still exist or for that matter that they shouldn't. In some respects they are another way of handling an age-old problem, which all women deal with on a daily basis. This essay is not meant to place a moral judgment or critique how people have dealt with the subject so much as analyze and depict it. I an not certain I can judge it one way or the other to be honest, every time I attempt it - I find myself questioning my judgement and thinking but...or wait a minute.

Also note, that if you look closely, the narrative in all of these stories really doesn't excuse rape or justify it. The rapist is not easily let off the hook. His actions do affect his relationship and often in a derogatory manner. What the narrative does is examine sexual violence within various contexts as an attempt to understand it and explain it, and often, as noted by Atwood, provide guidelines on how to avoid or handle it if necessary.

This is remarkably different than the rape trope in video games or male centric fiction - where it is about power and degradation. The women is treated as little more than an object for the male's use. If you watch Stirling's video you'll note the women are semi-clad, and seen as sex objects in these videos. In other genres - the woman is a victim and the rapist a monster. The focus is on how his crime destroyed her. Sometimes, as in the case of a Stephen King novel - the woman will go on a vengeance kick and take down the monster rapist in a blaze of glory. Note these are male centric fantasies, written for and often by men, even though women watch and read them. (I certainly have). The impulse in the male centric genres is three fold: 1) make the rapist pay (forgiveness is out of the question), 2) victimize the woman or in some cases make her out to be a whore, and in others a saint, 3)protect or play the hero, and in other's demean the woman through rape.

Often the female centric genre or romance genre is viewed through the same lenses as other genres. And I think this is a mistake. It's the mistake both foz meadows and Stirling make in lumping them all together and to a degree summarily dismissing the romance genre out of hand as irrelevant. When it has been proven to be anything but.

While on it's face, Buffy is not a romance, it has romantic elements and fits within the genre in many ways. It is targeted at women, not that other genres aren't as well, they are.  
But this series was targeted at teen girls as a romantic action adventure serial with attractive leads, and hot vampires that became sex symbols. I'm not sure you can lump Buffy in with other more male centric series and certainly not video games. At least not effectively.  



End file.
